Libytheana vagabunda (Scudder 1889)

Kawahara, Akito Y., 2013, <strong> Systematic revision and review of the extant and fossil snout butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Libytheinae) </ strong>, Zootaxa 3631 (1), pp. 1-74 : 58

Libytheana vagabunda (Scudder 1889)

( Fig. 63 )

Prolibythea vagabunda Scudder 1889a: 465 , pl. 53, Figs. 4–9 .

Libythea vagabunda Shields 1985a: 13 .

Preservation. This compression fossil is preserved lying on its dorsum, and is missing the left antenna, forewing and hindwing. Three carinae are visible on the right antenna, verifying its identification as a nymphalid. The right forewing and hindwing overlap, obscuring most of the wing pattern. The foreleg has 3 to 4 rows of short spines on the mesothoracic tibia, and small tarsi with slightly curved claws. These characteristics led both Scudder (1889a) and Shields (1985a) to conclude that the specimen is female.

Biology. Unknown, but Shields (1985a) noted that P. vagabunda may have fed on C. maccoshi because two well-preserved leaves of Celtis maccoshi Lesq. were found in the same beds from which the butterfly was found.

Deposition. The specimen is currently stored in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Data on the specimen read: “Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. No. 5, Field #16,353, Prolibythea vagabunda , Type, Scudder Collection, Florissant, Colorado.”

Remarks. Scudder (1889a) recognized the overall similarity in forewing shape to modern Libytheinae , but erected Prolibythea because the fossil possesses several unusual characteristics (e.g., unique wing venation, and a lobe at the hindwing margin of CuA 2). After restudying this specimen, Shields (1985a) concluded that Scudder’s description was incorrect, and suggested that the specimen would best be placed within Libythea because of similarities in wing morphology, tibia and tarsi. He believed that the specimen most closely resembled L. lepita formosana .

Kawahara (2009) scored the visible morphological features of this fossil and included the fossil in a cladistic analysis. The vagabunda fossil has two characters that clearly place it in Libytheana : 1) a forewing Rs 2 with a base closer to fork of Rs 3 + Rs 4 than discal cell apex; and 2) a discontinuous band from forewing costal margin to M 3. Kawahara (2009) transferred vagabunda to Libytheana , along with florissanti . Carpenter (1992: 379, Fig. 1 ) incorrectly illustrated the wing venation of vagabunda , and published a wing of a Parnassinae ( Papilionidae ). Refer to Scudder (1889a) for additional illustrations and images of L. vagabunda .

Figures

FIGURE 1. Phylogeny of snout butterflies based on morphology (after Kawahara 2009). Numbers above and below each rectangle refer to the characters and states in Kawahara (2009). A dark rectangle indicates a unique character state change (synapomorphy), a white rectangle indicates homoplasy. Large numbers indicate branch support (Bremer Support/jackknife). Due to limited space, outgroups are not shown in this figure.

FIGURES 63−68. Wing venation of Libytheana. 63. Libytheana vagabunda; 64. Libytheana carinenta carinenta; 65. Libytheana carinenta bachmanii; 66. Libytheana fulvescens; 67. Libytheana motya; 68. Libytheana terena.

FIGURES 2−13. Lateral view of the male eighth abdominal tergum of Libythea and Libytheana with scales and hairs removed. 2. Libythea celtis; 3. Libythea collenettei; 4. Libythea geoffroyi; 5. Libythea labdaca; 6. Libythea laius; 7. Libythea lepita; 8. Libythea myrrha; 9. Libythea narina; 10. Libytheana carinenta; 11. Libytheana fulvescens; 12. Libytheana motya; 13. Libytheana terena.